change_filament

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the intended result. It does not mention side effects, machine state changes, nozzle heating, printer availability requirements, or whether the operation is blocking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence and front-loads the verb and main object. It earns its place but is slightly too terse to cover usage and behavior without padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no nested schemas, the schema plus description is usable, but the lack of usage alternatives and behavioral context leaves gaps. There is no output schema to rely on, so a bit more context would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the overall tray-switching intent, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('AMS filament tray on a printer'), and the qualifier 'different' indicates selecting a non-current tray. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling operations like unload_filament.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as unload_filament or manual filament setup. The intended use is inferable from the verb, but the description does not state context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.